News

On the 3rd of January 2020, the news broke that the Trump administration had assassinated Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the foreign operations branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and one of the most powerful (and sinister) figures in the Iranian theocratic regime for over 20 years. He reported directly to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and was personally responsible for Iran’s extensive terrorist network across the Middle East and beyond.

We subsequently learned that Soleimani was taken out in Baghdad in a US drone attack. The administration has claimed that he was about to unleash further attacks in Iraq on US diplomatic residences, including service and civilian personnel. Just a week before, an American contractor was killed in Kirkuk, and several US service members were injured, apparently as a result of the Al-Quds network which Soleimani controlled.

Trump, in consequence of the above killing of an American civilian, acted decisively against the terrorist central nervous system of an infernal regime that some opine was coddled by the previous Obama presidency. Notwithstanding the shock and awe of the US escalation, the lack of a coherent strategy for the Trump administration (only a few months ago Mr. Trump withdrew support for Iran’s principal enemy, the Kurds) now has, some claim, been superseded by reckless adventurism. Senator Elizabeth (Medicare-for-all) Warren has hummed an almost socialist tune, characterizing the president as an oafish child playing with matches in the fireworks cupboard.

Typically, the different wings of American politics flap together in international emergencies. Thus, both sides applauded President Obama’s operation to terminate Osama bin Laden. This time, Trump’s foreign policy initiative, whatever its underlying motives, has been criticized and politicized along partisan lines.

Everyone knew that somewhere, somehow, the Iranians would try to exact revenge (they always do). The hail of missiles that followed on a couple of US bases in Iraq was 'deliberately' ineffectual, as were the volley of tweets coming out of Tehran. These were subjected to exhaustive textual analysis. The Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, described the rocket attack as “conclusive,” suggesting that Iran was not planning any further military action. It would, therefore, seem that the 'tit for tat' situation is contained for now. Maybe the tense internal situation now within Iran demands it, given the tragic almost farcical stampede at the mass funeral of Soleimani which resulted in scores dead followed closely by the accidental shooting down of a Ukrainian passenger airliner by Iranian security forces.

Trump’s challenge now is to persuade both supporters and detractors that the extra-judicial elimination of Soleimani was justified in military terms. The administration – best articulated by Secretary of State Pompeo, who has emerged as a figure of authority – claims that Soleimani was plotting an operation that would have cost “thousands” of American lives. Until tangible evidence of this claim emerges, the arguments will continue to divide and, in the meantime, we are now in the electoral year, which some may feel we have been in since 2016.

It is a cliché that the outcome of US electoral contests can be anticipated according to how well a candidate’s campaign is funded. On that basis, Trump is already the favorite to win, come this November.

The President’s re-election campaign began 2020 with more than $100 million in the bank. That amounts to nearly one-third of the total funds spent by the Trump presidential campaign in 2016 when he raised $339 million and spent $322 million, as per US federal election returns. Its claimed, Trump contributed $66 million of his own money last time around.

The Trump campaign raised $46 million in Q4 2019, according to campaign manager Brad Parscale. One reason for its success, said Mr. Parscale, was a backlash against the Democrat’s “sham impeachment frenzy.”

Senator Bernie Sanders’ campaign announced on 02 January that it had raised $34.5 million in Q4 2019 through 1.8 million individual donations averaging about $18 each – evidence of widespread grassroots support. That is thought to be the most substantial amount raised by any Democratic presidential candidate in a single quarter.

The mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, raised $24.7 million in Q4 2019, bringing his total for the year to more than $76 million. The Buttigieg campaign received donations from 326,000 individuals. His campaign employs over 500 staffers nationwide. Buttigieg’s stint as mayor came to a close on 01 January. One opinion poll puts Buttigieg at the head of the pack. Buttigieg, despite his unpronounceable name, is in many ways the most interesting candidate.

Entrepreneur Andrew Yang’s campaign raised $16.5 million in the last quarter of 2016, and Representative Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) raised $3.4 million. Former Vice President Biden and Senator Warren have yet to release their fundraising numbers.